On Point

State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64, reversing 2001 WI App 145, 246 Wis. 2d 533, 629 N.W.2d 31
For Noble: Thomas H. Boyd

Issue/Holding: Suppression of evidence is required only where it has been obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights or of a statute specifically providing for suppression as a remedy. ¶14.

Issue: Whether, assuming that a detective’s examining defendant at a John Doe proceeding amounted to violation of the unauthorized practice of law statute,

State v. Albert Jackowski, 2001 WI App 187
For Jackowski: Ronald C. Shiroka

Issue: Whether violation of a statutory requirement for issuance of a building inspection warrant (namely, the § 66.0119(2) condition that such a warrant be issued only upon showing that consent to enter was refused) supports suppression of evidence obtained after entry under the warrant.

Holding:

¶17. We accept, however, the State’s alternative argument that refusal of consent is not a constitutional requirement for issuance of an administrative warrant,

State v. Albert Jackowski, 2001 WI App 187
For Jackowski: Ronald C. Shiroka

Issue1: Whether review of issuance of an administrative warrant is entitled to the same deference as a criminal search warrant.

Holding: “Great deference” is no less accorded a magistrate’s decision to issue an administrative warrant than a criminal search warrant. ¶¶9-14.

Issue2: Whether a building inspection warrant must be supported by probable cause to believe code violations then exist in the building.

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, reversed, other grounds, 2002 WI 34
For Samuel: Robert R. Henak

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for interference with child custody, § 948.31(2) and abduction, § 948.30(1)(a).

Holding:

¶38      We adopt the State’s construction.  So long as the defendant has had a hand in physically removing the child from the parents’ possession,

State v. Davon R. Malcom, 2001 WI App 291, PFR filed 11/27/01
For Malcom: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court properly amended the information, after close of evidence, to add a charge of keeping a place “which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances” to the charge of using the same place to manufacture, keep or deliver controlled substances (both charges being alternatives under § 961.41(2).

State v. Dennis R. Fosnow, 2001 WI App 2, 240 Wis. 2d 699, 624 N.W.2d 883
For Fosnow: David D. Cook

Issue: Whether a postconviction diagnosis supporting an NGI defense amounted to newly discovered evidence, where the defendant had pled no contest after receiving unfavorable NGI evaluations.

Holding: The new diagnosis was merely a new appreciation of the importance of evidence previously known but not used and therefore didn’t satisfy the test for newly discovered evidence.

State v. Everardo A. Lopez, 2001 WI App 265
For Lopez: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether plea withdrawal is the appropriate remedy where the record contains no evidence that Lopez understood all elements of the offense

Holding:

¶22. The proper remedy upon determining that the State failed to establish that Lopez understood the elements of the offense with which he was charged when he entered his no contest plea is to remand the case to permit Lopez to withdraw his plea. 

State v. Everardo A. Lopez, 2001 WI App 265
For Lopez: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Lopez made a prima facie showing that the plea colloquy was inadequate.

Holding: The Spanish-speaking Lopez had problems, acknowledged by the trial court, communicating with his interpreter and necessitating a continuance of the plea hearing. At neither the aborted plea hearing or the subsequent one at which the plea was accepted did the trial court determine,

State v. Christopher Lee Davis, 2001 WI 136, reversing 2001 WI App 61
For Davis: Jane Krueger Smith

Issue1: Whether a circuit has discretion to dismiss a case with prejudice under § 971.11(7), for failure of the state to bring it on for trial within the 120-day period set by § 971.11(2).

Holding:

¶14. We agree with the court of appeals that ‘the legislature has left the matter up to the courts to exercise its [sic] discretion to dismiss with prejudice in a proper case lest the statute have no meaning at all.’ This interpretation of Wis.

State v. Mohammed A. Nonahal, 2001 WI App 39
For Nonahal: David R. Karpe

Issue: Whether the defendant waived a claimed violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers’ anti-shuttling provision, by requesting to be sent back to the sending jurisdiction before trial.

Holding:

¶8; … we conclude that rights granted under the anti-shuttling provision of the IAD are statutory in nature and may be waived if the prisoner requests a procedure inconsistent with the statute’s provisions….¶9;